Duty shmooty. There is no mainstream political will demanding that Manning be treated humanely. Until there is he will be treated in any way they wish. In a related theme: how long has the School of the Americas been operating when it has been the "Duty" of any moral person including american politicians (oxymoronic tho that may be)to close down a torture school? Morality in the usa is only a term to be used when it suits an agenda. There is no longer any substance to the word there. (apologies to voices in the wilderness and those others in the minority who still have a conscience.)

While looking for information about Torkham I found this info in Wikipedia about Nangarhar Province where Torkham is located:
"Once a major center of opium poppy production in Afghanistan, the province had reportedly decreased its production of poppy by up to 95% in 2005, one of the success stories of the Afghan eradication program. However, the eradication program has often left peasant farmers destitute and, in 2006, farmers were reported to have surrendered their children to opium dealers in payment on their debts."
This is an example of how a successful conclusion (?) to a campaign by one group of people is a death sentence to others. The consequences for the "successful" group in the future will not be pleasant.

"without a responsible ethical position through which Washington takes responsibility for the dirtiest colonization that caused disasters for the Iraqis, extremism, terrorism, and destructive reactions will govern the relations between the East and the West for a long time to come.”
I couldn't agree more; the ethical position must include war reparations.

To complete this speech I think the President should have offered war reparations to Iraq, the sum to be determined by a neutral party. This would be the right thing to do and would demonstrate that the US has taken responsibility for its actions in a concrete manner. Words are cheap.

"In the United Nations order, there are only two legitimate preconditions for going to war. One is clear self-defense, in response to an aggressive attack. (The Gulf War, responding to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, is a case in point). The other is authorization by the UN Security Council. But W. had neither precondition on his side when he invaded Iraq, and so he acted lawlessly, as Obama saw clearly at the time."
When Bush invaded Afghanistan he didn't have either one either. Re your legal preconditions: 1) An attack by a terrorist organization is not the same as an attack by a nation state. It was a criminal act not an act of war. 2) If the Security Council itself okayed this invasion it did it after the fact, so the invasion itself was illegal.

I cannot but be sympathetic to Proudhon's view that "property is theft" when food (and soon water) is private property. When people cannot afford to buy the food that they produce because of the requirements of capital, surely private property is robbing untold numbers of children of their lives. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which also to my chagrin also sanctifies private property).